United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service

LDP-M-108-01

June 2003 Interstate Livestock Movements

Abstract

This article provides a current national picture of interstate movements of livestock. A better

understanding of livestock shipping patterns helps in characterizing the livestock sectors,

estimating the economic effects of potential disease outbreak, and assessing marketing

issues. For cattle, large movements occur in most regions of the country, with greatest volume into (and within) the Northern and Southern Plains. For hogs, the dominant flow is into

(and within) the Corn Belt. Sheep shipments are most numerous in the western two-thirds

of the United States. Several factors shape these patterns, including relative costs of transporting animals versus feed/forage, geographic differences in feed/forage availability and

prices, and the development of concentrated livestock feeding areas. 

Keywords: Livestock, cattle, sheep, hogs, movements, shipments, inshipments,

outshipments

Note: A web data product, including several hundred maps, accompanies this article and

is available at: www.ers.usda.gov/Data/InterstateLivestockMovements 

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the reviews of Don Blayney, Ron Gustafson, Joy

Harwood, Ken Nelson, and Janet Perry of ERS; Steve Anderson of the National

Agricultural Statistics Service; John Green and Jennifer Grannis of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service; Warren Preston of the Agricultural Marketing Service; Shayle

Shagam of the World Agricultural Outlook Board; and Rhonda Skaggs of New Mexico

State University. Excellent support was provided by the editor, Dale Simms, and by the

designer, Wynnice Pointer-Napper.

Dennis A. Shields and Kenneth H. Mathews, Jr.1

1 Agricultural economists with the Market and Trade Economics Division in USDA's Economic 

Research Service.
An economic reality in the livestock industry is the

geographic separation between livestock in one stage of

production and the feed/forage resources or facilities

needed for successive stages of production. This is

most apparent when animals are moved from growing

areas (e.g., prior to weaning) to finishing areas (where

livestock are fed to slaughter weight) and then to

slaughter plants. Differences in costs for shipping live

animals versus animal feed and forage, as well as

regional differences in livestock productivity, largely

determine what will be shipped. Because shipping animals is often cheaper than shipping the feed needed to

reach slaughter weight, moving livestock enables the

efficient use of feed and forage (grass or hay) supplies

that vary by region and season. 

Livestock movements across the U.S. have a long history. In the 1800s, cattle drives brought animals from

grazing areas in the Great Plains to the Midwest and

slaughter plants farther east. Today, livestock travel

coast to coast. Pigs, for example, are frequently

shipped from farrowing operations in North Carolina

to nursery facilities or grower/finisher facilities in

Iowa where they are fed to market weights, then

moved again to California for slaughter (Zering,

2001). Cattle and hogs are also shipped from Canada

to the United States for feeding or slaughter.2

In recent decades, increased movement of hogs

(including imports) has elevated the number of livestock crossing State lines—from 30 million head in

1970 to 50 million in 2001. Today, interstate livestock

movements, as a share of the annual number of animals born, are about 27 percent for hogs, 34 percent

for sheep, and 57 percent for cattle. (Including

intrastate movements, which are not covered in this

study, would result in even greater shares.)

Livestock movements affect profits for livestock owners and jobs in the transportation sector, as well as

what consumers pay at supermarkets and restaurants.

Livestock marketing patterns also have implications

for how buyers and sellers arrive at prices, along with

how those prices are reported. In addition, industry

and policymakers are combating an increased public

perception of risk from animal disease and grappling

with how best to mitigate the effect of a disease outbreak within this transportation framework. The highly

contagious nature of some diseases (e.g., foot and

mouth disease—FMD), the potential for bioterrorism,

and the economic implications of both make livestock

movements that much more consequential. 

A recent, well-documented, and thorough picture of

interstate trade in cattle, hogs, and sheep has been

unavailable. Previous writings described general patterns

of livestock movements (e.g., Lesser) or patterns for

selected species, periods, or markets (e.g., Abbott and

Smith, Hoffman et al., Judge et al., McCauley et al.).

This article describes U.S. livestock movements by

assessing patterns in State-to-State shipments of major

species, and discusses the economic factors shaping

these patterns. A map of each State’s shipments by

species is available online at www.ers.usda.gov/

Data/InterstateLivestockMovements.

Information on the volume and direction of livestock

movements has many uses. The economic effects of a

potential disease outbreak, for example, are highly

dependent on livestock movements. By tracking livestock movements, the disease can be contained regionally, perhaps minimizing the effects of a major outbreak. Also, information on livestock movements is

crucial in analyzing price differentials for various

classes of livestock, especially when considering 

market and financial prospects for the industry. 

2 Economic Research Service, USDA

Introduction

2 As of May 20, 2003, imports of Canadian cattle and cattle products were temporarily suspended following the discovery of a cow

in Canada infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE,

also known as mad cow disease).
Economic Research Service, USDA 3

Livestock Movements and Costs of Disease Spread

Movements of livestock and other animals have historically affected the spread of disease. For example,

more than 30 foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreaks around the world since the 1800s (out of more

than 800) have been due to livestock importations or

other livestock movements (USDA, 1994). Texas cattle fever, a tickborne disease, spread north in the late

1800s as cattle drives crossed Texas, Oklahoma, and

Kansas (McCoy and Bieber). Today, interstate commerce in livestock continues, and knowledge of animal movements could facilitate disease control efforts

by alerting epidemiologists and veterinarians to

potential areas of spread and by providing information necessary to develop response plans that would

minimize costs of control and eradication. 

The potential for wider spread of diseases is affected

by modern livestock production systems. Livestock 

are often moved between facilities to reduce costs and

improve productivity by linking production and 

marketing stages. Most movement for these operations is local, but animals are also moved across State 

and international boundaries. The prevalence of interauction movements and intra-auction mixing and 

dispersion, particularly for cattle, also increases the

potential for disease spread.

If a serious disease outbreak were to occur, livestock

movement could be curtailed temporarily to help contain the outbreak. Halting all livestock transport could

result in higher costs for producers unable to move

livestock to market or to another facility as scheduled.

These costs include production losses due to overcrowding, extra feed, increased management, and perhaps increased health care as stressed animals become

more easily infected. In addition, indemnities paid by

the government for condemned livestock may not

cover these costs, except for livestock in quarantine

areas. Knowledge of livestock movement patterns

might allow authorities to selectively manipulate or

stop transportation, thus mitigating the costs of a total

transportation shutdown.
The U.S. inventory of major livestock species on January

1, 2002, was 164 million head, including 97 million cattle, 60 million hogs, and 7 million sheep. The geographic concentration of animals varies by species, contingent

on resource bases and other factors that contribute to

industry productivity (fig. 1). 

The U.S. cattle herd is dispersed throughout the U.S.,

reflecting the distribution of forage, the most important

production input. In many areas, cattle are considered

the “residual claimant” of land because the land has few

or perhaps no other uses that offer comparable returns. 

About half the U.S. beef cow inventory is on rangeland

and pastures between the Mississippi River and the

Rocky Mountains. Most feeder cattle, though, are concentrated in the Southern Plains and southern portion of

the Northern Plains where weather is generally most

conducive to weight gain (fig. 2).3 Also, feed grains

(e.g., sorghum or corn) are relatively plentiful there.

Calves move frequently prior to slaughter because of

geographic differences in where calves are born, raised

(e.g., placed on wheat pasture), fed (placed in feedlots),

and slaughtered. A study that identified feeder cattle

markets for two feeding areas in Texas and Kansas

found that 80 percent of feeder cattle are shipped more

than 200 miles (Bailey et al., 1995).4

Much of the U.S. dairy herd is in the Lake States,

Northeast, and West (Pacific and Mountain regions). In

the West, a warm, dry climate and large, dependable

supplies of high-quality forage provide a cost advantage

in milk production. Due to industry expansion in the

West and particular production practices (e.g., maintaining high turnover rates in cow herds), demand for dairy

heifers in that region is greater than its supply (Miller,

2001). California, for example, imports dairy cattle from

the Lake States and other areas. 

The bulk of U.S. hog production is located in the Corn

Belt, near abundant feed supplies. With substantial corn

output in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and other Corn Belt

States, feed and transportation costs are relatively low.

Despite a feed cost disadvantage, hog production has

expanded since the 1970s into less traditional areas like

North Carolina, where production expanded almost

exclusively from the use of contracting by a few large

integrators who developed close links among producers,

packers, and consumers (McBride and Key, 2003). Also,

the new facilities allowed for more environmentally controlled production, which improves animal performance

and spreads overhead costs over more units of production (McBride, 1995). Expansion has occurred more

recently in Oklahoma, where open space and low population density enable flexibility in managing animal

waste (McBride and Key, 2003).

Some larger farrow-to-finish operations ship weaned

pigs to faraway facilities for growing-finishing.5 For

example, farrowing operations in North Carolina ship 3

to 4 million head to the Corn Belt annually for growingfinishing, and not all of these pigs change legal ownership (Zering, 2001). Nationally, only 29 percent of pigs

enter the grower/finisher phase at the same site on which

they were farrowed (USDA, 2001).

Sheep are raised all around the country, but mostly in

arid regions of Western States (Mountain and Pacific

regions) and in areas of the Northern and Southern

Plains with few or no agricultural alternatives. Compared

with cattle, sheep can graze on terrain that is more

rugged or hardscrabble, typical conditions in the western

half of the United States.6 Small flocks of sheep are also

kept to utilize marginal forages and pastures on many

farms (Shapouri, 1991). Texas has the largest sheep

inventory, while Colorado has major feeding and slaughter industries and receives animals from many sheepproducing States. Nationally, only 24 percent of lambs

are fed (for slaughter) on the same operation where they

originated (USDA, 2002a).

4 Economic Research Service, USDA

Locations of Production

3 Before entering feedlots, weaned calves for beef production are generally sent to an intermediate stage called backgrounding for several

months, which encourages structural growth. During the backgrounding period—when animals eat roughage and/or light energy rations or

graze pasture (native grass or winter wheat)—producers decide when

to place them in feedlots to fatten for slaughter, based on market conditions and forage availability. Once in the feedlot, these feeder steers

or heifers are fed a high-energy ration of grain, silage, hay, and/or protein supplement for approximately 4 months. In some cases, weaned

calves are sent directly to the feedlot (bypassing the backgrounding

phase) where they are fed for a longer period of time. 

4 Several other studies have also investigated spatial characteristics

and price differentials for cattle (Walburger and Foster; Schroeder

and Goodwin; Goodwin and Schroeder, 1990 and 1991) and hogs

(Roe et al.).

5 Three types of specialized enterprises account for most hog

farms. Farrow-to-finish operations raise hogs from birth to slaughter weight, about 250 to 270 pounds. Feeder pig producers raise

pigs from birth to about 20 to 60 pounds, then generally sell them

to feeder pig finishers who grow them to slaughter weight.

6 Sheep farms include lambing production systems, growing,

and/or finishing operations. Lamb feeding programs may include a

combination of grain and grass, or lambs may be placed in a feedlot for high-concentrate (energy) feeding.
Economic Research Service, USDA 5

Figure 1

Distribution of selected livestock

Sheep and lambs

Cattle and cows

Hogs and pigs

1 Dot = 25,000

1 Dot = 25,000

1 Dot = 25,000

Source: 1997 Census of Agriculture.

Figure 2

USDA farm production regions

Alaska/Hawaii

Pacific

Delta

States

Corn Belt

Lake

States

Southern

Plains

Northern

Plains

Mountain

Northeast

Appalachia

Southeast
Patterns in livestock movements are a function of at least

three economic features of the livestock and feed/forage

industries. The first is the relative costs of transporting

animals versus feed/forage. Generally, transporting an

animal is less costly than transporting the feed required

for it to reach slaughter weight because the weight of the

animal is less than the total feed it will consume.7 This

situation arises because many cattle and sheep are reared

in low-cost areas where land may have little or no other

agricultural uses, and where growing feed for raising the

animals to slaughter weights is not feasible. The same

transportation principle generally applies in the hog

industry. North Carolina, for example, ships hogs to the

Corn Belt for feeding, although the State also imports

feed for a large number of hogs fed instate.

The second economic feature affecting movements is

industry structure, particularly for the hog and cattle

industries. In reducing costs in recent decades, farms,

feeding operations, and processors have specialized in

certain aspects of the livestock production system and

grown larger. With specialization, firms take advantage

of regional cost advantages related to climate, proximity

to feed sources, regulatory differences, or proximity to

processing facilities.8 Large, high-density feeding operations tend to have lower capital and labor costs per unit

because animals kept closer together require less labor

and facilities per animal. This specialization, along with

the development of irrigated feedgrain acreage, has

resulted in areas of concentrated beef cattle production

in the Great Plains. Similarly, production has expanded

in the West for dairy cattle and in the Midwest and

Southeast for hogs. When production activities are geographically distinct, animals must be shipped between

production stages.

The third economic feature affecting livestock movement is geographic differences in forage availability

and prices, which depend in part on climate, time of

year, species of livestock, and production technology.

In the West, from California to Colorado, producers

move sheep and cattle between rangelands and pastures at various elevations as forage availability

changes with the season. Beef calves, shortly after

weaning in the fall, move from widely dispersed

cow/calf areas in the northern Rocky Mountains, the

Southeast, and other areas into the Plains States

where wheat or other cool-season pastures are located. These calves subsequently move to summer pastures or feedlots. Many of these cattle (about 85 percent) move through local auctions, often several

(USDA, 1998), where they are sorted and mixed with

calves from other areas before ultimately arriving at

pastures or feedlots. 

Together, these characteristics create economic incentives to ship live animals from where they are born

across the country to low-cost feeding or grazing

regions.9 Demand for lighter weight cattle, for example, elevates feeder cattle prices in major feeding areas

such as the central and southern Plains, resulting in an

inflow of cattle from other regions of the country (fig.

3). Other factors such as livestock quality may also

help explain price differences and consequent movement of animals.

6 Economic Research Service, USDA

9 For the same reasons, the U.S. imports cattle from Mexico

(mostly feeder cattle) and hogs from Canada (increasingly more

feeder pigs than slaughter hogs). Historically, cattle have been

both imported and exported, with some moving back and forth

across the U.S.-Canadian border (e.g., U.S. feeder cattle shipped

to Canada and returned to the United States for slaughter). As of

May 20, 2003, imports of Canadian cattle and cattle products were

suspended following the discovery of a cow in Canada infected

with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, also known as mad

cow disease).

Economics of Livestock Movements

7 For example, it costs less to ship a 500-pound steer from cowcalf producing areas (e.g., southeastern U.S.) to the Great Plains

(where there is forage for growth and grain for finishing) than

shipping 2 tons of grain and several tons of forage needed to grow

it to slaughter weight and produce a carcass that will grade USDA

Select or better (Schmidt).

8 To the extent that environmental concerns, including waste disposal, limit livestock production (e.g., hog production in North

Carolina), animal movement can also be affected. 
Economic Research Service, USDA 7

Major 

feeding 

area

Figure 3

Feeder cattle prices are highest in major feeding areas

$ per cwt

700-800 pound steers (medium and large No. 1). Weekly data averaged for month of October 2001. Almost 80 percent of cattle 

on feed are located in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Nebraska.

Source: National Feeder Cattle Summary (report no. SJ_LS850), USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service. 

*Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina. 

**Includes western Nebraska, western North and South Dakota.

0 20 40 60

Oklahoma direct

Colorado

Dodge City, KS

Texas direct

Kansas direct

Oklahoma City

Wyoming**

Amarillo, TX

Springfield, MO

Montana

St. Joseph, MO

Kentucky

Arkansas

Southeast*

Tennessee

90 10 30 50 70 80
The patterns of livestock movement follow from the

geographic distribution of livestock at various stages

of production. Understanding movement patterns can

be heightened by comparing a State’s share of U.S.

livestock births with its share of market inventories

and livestock slaughter.10 Identical shares across all

three would imply minimal interstate livestock movements. However, share data for cattle, hogs, and sheep

show the opposite.

The U.S. calf crop is widely dispersed, reflecting a

widely dispersed cow herd (fig. 4). The top four States

(Texas, Missouri, California, and Oklahoma) account

for about one-fourth of the U.S. calf crop. In contrast,

the top four cattle feeding States (Texas, Kansas,

Nebraska, and Colorado) account for 65 percent of

U.S. feeder cattle supply. Cattle slaughter is even more

concentrated, with more than two-thirds of U.S. cattle

slaughter occurring in these same major feeding

States. For all species, the slaughter process is more

specialized than feeding, and increasing returns to

larger operations, combined with refrigerated shipping

technology, has resulted in the location of large packing plants near major feeding areas, which lowers the

costs of transporting livestock to slaughter plants.

Even so, fed cattle are shipped an average of 100 miles

to slaughter (USDA, 2000).

The hog industry is more concentrated in grain-producing areas than are the cow-calf and backgrounding

components of the cattle industry. Swine production is

much less dependent on forages, with grain a major

feed component for pigs throughout their life cycle.

Consequently, State shares across stages of production

are more even (fig. 5). In fact, the top four States are

the same for the pig crop, market hog inventory, and

slaughter. Half of the pig crop is located in four States

(North Carolina, Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois), compared with about 60 percent of the Nation’s market hog

inventory and about 56 percent of U.S. hog slaughter.11

The ability of sheep to forage in arid climates with

sparse vegetation determines the industry’s regional

distribution (Stillman et al., 1990). Consequently, the

lamb crop is widely dispersed, mostly in the arid,

western half of the United States where the top four

States (Texas, Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota)

account for a third of the total (fig. 6). Similarly, lamb

feeding is concentrated in the Great Plains and West,

with about 54 percent of the market lamb and sheep

inventory located in California, Texas, Colorado, and

Oregon. As with cattle, sheep slaughter is the most

concentrated stage of the production process, mostly in

States with major feeding industries and/or a long history of cattle/sheep slaughter. More than 80 percent of

U.S. sheep slaughter is in Colorado, California, Iowa,

and Texas.

8 Economic Research Service, USDA

Geographic Distribution by Production Stage

10 Data from this section, as reported by USDA's National

Agricultural Statistics Service, include calf, pig, and lamb crops

(births); cattle on feed, market hog, and sheep inventories; and

livestock slaughter.

11 Iowa is the leading State for both market hog inventory and

slaughter (North Carolina is second).

Figure 4

Most States produce more calves than they

feed or slaughter

Percent

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

TX

MO

CA

OK

SD

NE

MT

KS

WI

IA

KY

TN

ND

FL

MN

ID

CO

WY

AR

VA

AL

OR

PA

0 5 10 15 20 25

Slaughter

Calf crop

Cattle on feed

Shares based on 2001 calf crop, January 1, 2002 cattle on feed, 

and 2001 commercial slaughter.

State share of 

U.S.:
Economic Research Service, USDA 9

Figure 5

State shares across stages of hog production

are more even than for cattle or sheep

Percent

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

Commercial slaughter

Pig crop

All market hogs

Shares based on December 2001-February 2002 pig crop, 

March 1, 2002 market hog inventory, and 2001 commercial slaughter. 

0 5

NC

IA

MN

IL

MO

NE

OK

IN

CO

KS

OH

SD

AR

PA

MI

TX

WI

VA

10 15 20 25 30

State share of 

U.S.:

Figure 6

Most States produce more lambs than they 

feed or slaughter

Percent

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

Slaughter

Lamb crop

Inventory

Shares based on 2001 lamb crop, January 1, 2002 market sheep 

inventory, and 2001 commercial slaughter.

State share of 

U.S.:

TX

WY

MT

SD

UT

CA

ID

IA

CO

OR

MN

NM

OH

ND

NE

KS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Total inshipments of livestock by State are reported in

“Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income—

2001 Summary” by USDA’S National Agricultural

Statistics Service. Inshipments are livestock shipped

into States for feeding or breeding and exclude animals brought in for immediate slaughter.12 These data

describe trends in the total number of animals shipped

into a State (without reference to State of origin) (table

1 and fig. 7).

In 2001, U.S. cattle inshipments (beef and dairy)

totaled nearly 22 million head, with the top four States

(Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, and Colorado) receiving 63

percent of the total. Oklahoma and Iowa each received

more than 1 million head as well. In the last three

decades, the U.S. total has been relatively unchanged,

but shipments still represent more than half the number of calves born each year. Moreover, with the total

cattle inventory declining, the number of animals

shipped as a share of the national herd has increased

since the 1970s. Shipments increased significantly in

the 1950s and 1960s when the large-scale cattle feeding industry developed in the High Plains. 

U.S. hog inshipments in 2001 totaled 26.9 million

head (about 27 percent of the national pig crop), compared with 3-5 million head from the 1970s to the

early 1990s. The dramatic increase in the last 10 years

reflects significant feeder pig imports from Canada

and development of the hog industry in North Carolina

and other States. Many of these hogs are shipped to

Iowa and other Midwest States for feeding. Iowa

received nearly half of U.S. inshipments in 2001,

while Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana each

imported more than 1 million head. 

U.S. sheep inshipments in 2001 totaled 1.5 million

head or about one-third of the U.S. lamb crop.

Colorado and California—two major feeding and

slaughter States—accounted for almost two-thirds of

the total. All other States imported 81,000 head or less.

In contrast to cattle and hogs, sheep inshipments have

been declining markedly during the last several decades

as the total inventory continues a long-term decline.

10 Economic Research Service, USDA

Trends in Interstate Livestock Shipments

12 To estimate inshipments, NASS uses inventory levels, marketings, and information provided by each State Department of

Agriculture, including data from certificates of veterinary inspection and branding programs (cattle).

Table 1—Livestock shipments, 1960-2001

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001

1,000 head

Inshipments:

Cattle 13,477 22,884 20,034 22,533 23,512 21,813

Hogs 2,500 3,214 4,598 3,643 22,636 26,889

Sheep 6,099 4,036 2,216 2,186 1,891 1,543

Total 22,076 30,134 26,848 28,362 48,039 50,245

Percent

Inshipments as a share of births:

Cattle 34 50 45 58 61 57

Hogs 3 3 5 4 22 27

Sheep 29 30 27 28 41 34

Inshipments as a share of national inventory:

Cattle 14 20 18 24 24 22

Hogs 4 5 7 7 38 45

Sheep 18 20 17 19 27 22

Inshipments are livestock shipped into states for feeding and breeding. Excludes animals brought in for immediate slaughter.

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Economic Research Service, USDA 11

Figure 7

U.S. inshipments for livestock (cattle, hogs, sheep)

Livestock inshipments in 2001

Rank Cattle Hogs Sheep

1,000 head

1 KS 4,195 IA 13,000 CO 654

2 NE 3,850 MN 4,050 CA 305

3 TX 3,420 IL 1,600 AZ 81

4 CO 2,180 MO 1,590 TX 77

5 OK 1,100 IN 1,290 IA 74

6 IA 1,080 SD 910 NE 57

7 NM 864 OK 890 OR 40

8 CA 750 NE 750 SD 39

9 AZ 625 OH 600 WY 32

10 ID 555 KS 480 MN 28

1990 92 94 96 98 2000

0

10

20

30

Cattle

Hogs

Sheep

Mil. head

More than 1 million

100,000 - 499,999

500,000 - 1 million

Less than 100,000

2001 total =

26.9 million head

Iowa

Minnesota

Missouri

1990 92 94 96 98 2000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Illinois

Mil. head

2001 total =

1.5 million head

More than 100,000

10,000 - 49,999

50,000 - 99,999

Less than 10,000

California

Colorado

Arizona

Texas

1990 92 94 96 98 2000

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mil. head

2001 total =

21.8 million head

More than 2 million

100,000 - 499,999

500,000 - 2 million

Less than 100,000

Nebraska

Colorado

Kansas

Texas

1990 92 94 96 98 2000

0

2

4

6

Mil. head

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

Livestock

Hogs Sheep

Cattle
To protect animal health, States regulate interstate

movement of livestock, often through their departments of agriculture. State-certified veterinarians verify that animals are free of disease and meet State-specific requirements. In general, States require certificates of veterinary inspection and import permits for

animals destined for feeding or breeding purposes.13

Data from these certificates are used in this section to

approximate State-to-State flows that are not provided

in the data used in previous sections. Shipments have

been grouped into 11 U.S. regions. A complete set of

maps for each State’s inshipments/outshipments by

species is available at www.ers.usda.gov/Data/

InterstateLivestockMovements.

Tabulation and summarization of certificates varies widely by State. Some State animal health departments maintain databases that indicate State of origin/destination by

species and by month. A few tabulate by shipments, by

purpose (e.g., feeding or breeding), or by cattle type (e.g.,

beef or dairy). Other States only store printed certificates

and do not tabulate data by State of origin/destination, in

some cases due to declining resources. 

State certificate data from 2000 and 2001 were collected

in spring 2002. Data (tabulated by origin/destination)

were available for 29 States representing all regions of

the country. Animals in these States represent about

two-thirds of the U.S. cattle inventory, 80 percent of the

hog inventory, and half of the sheep inventory. See the

appendix table for a description of the data by species

(States and year of data).

In order to compile these data into State and regional

flows, inshipments (if available) are used first to identify

livestock movements (i.e., by origin and destination)

since States may keep better track of animals coming into

the State than outgoing animals. If inshipments are not

available for a particular State, outshipment data (animals

moving out of State) from other States to that State are

used as a proxy. Together, these data still provide incomplete coverage of all U.S. shipments. For example, cattle

shipments compiled from the 29 State sources totaled

about 17.7 million head, compared with a U.S. total of

21.8 million reported by NASS.14 For hogs, shipments

compiled from State sources were 24.7 million head,

compared with a U.S. total of 26.9 million reported by

NASS. For sheep, State sources tallied 860,000 head,

compared with 1.5 million reported by NASS. Certificate

data provide an estimate of the minimal level of interstate

livestock movement because undocumented shipments

likely occur, particularly where local production regions

straddle State borders.

In the following sections, regional livestock flows are

graphically depicted using the procedures described

above (tables 2, 4, and 5). On each summary map, calculated shipments from a region are compared with

livestock births in that region to illustrate the extent of

livestock movements for each of the three species.

Table 3 summarizes these numbers for all three species.

12 Economic Research Service, USDA

Livestock Movements—Estimates by Origin and Destination

13 Many States do not require certificates for animals shipped to

slaughter plants, the terminal destination for these animals and

from where the risk of spreading animal diseases is minimal.

14 Both data sources (i.e., State and NASS) exclude animals 

for slaughter.
Economic Research Service, USDA 13

Livestock Shipments—Example of North Carolina

Examining shipments for particular States helps illustrate the geographic range and variety of origins/destinations for livestock. Livestock are shipped from North

Carolina to almost every other State. Cattle have the

widest geographic distribution, with most of the cattle

sent to pastures and feedlots in the Northern and

Southern Plains, as well as to operations in the Corn

Belt. Hog shipments out of North Carolina are much

greater (3.8 million head versus 45,000 head for cattle),

with shipments not extending into or beyond the Rocky

Mountains, mostly to Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and

Missouri. A small sheep industry results in few shipments (less than 400), with a geographic range covering

most of the eastern third of the United States. 

All areas of the country are affected in some way by

livestock shipments, although certain livestock flows

tend to dominate, especially for the hog industry and for

some beef and dairy cattle movements. The breadth of

livestock marketing increases the potential for a single

disease outbreak to affect many regions of the country.

More than 1 million

1 - 99,999

100,000 - 1 million

None

Annual total =

3.8 million head

More than 7,000

1 - 999

1,000 - 7,000

None

Annual total =

45,492 head

More than 50

1 - 9

10 - 50

None

Annual total =

343 head

North Carolina hog shipments to other States

Rank State No. head

1 Iowa 1,232,108

2 Illinois 803,272

3 Indiana 652,213

4 Missouri 231,883

5 S. Carolina 176,474

6 Virginia 136,736

7 Ohio 130,164

8 Alabama 98,366

9 Minnesota 96,254

10 Mississippi 78,863

North Carolina cattle shipments to other States

Rank State No. head

1 Nebraska 8,717

2 Kansas 6,879

3 Texas 5,000

4 Kentucky 4,140

5 Georgia 3,049

6 Mississippi 3,029

7 Florida 2,088

8 Iowa 2,072

9 Oklahoma 2,013

10 Illinois 1,715

North Carolina sheep shipments to other States

Rank State No. head

1 Ohio 90

2 Georgia 50

3 S. Carolina 48

4 Oklahoma 28

5 Florida 22

6 Virginia 19

7 Missouri 16

8 Tennessee 15

9 Indiana 12

10 W. Virginia 12

Data source: Animal health certificates as reported by North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

and other States (2001).
Cattle are moved regularly in most regions of the

country, with greatest movement into (and within) the

Northern Plains. Many feeder cattle cross from the

eastern U.S. into the Northern and Southern Plains to

be fed or grazed (prior to entering feedlots). The

Mountain region sees significant grazing as well. In

the Corn Belt, feeding operations bring in cattle from

the Delta, Northern Plains, and other States.15

14 Economic Research Service, USDA

Regional Cattle Flows 

Table 2—Regional cattle flow

Destination

Destination Northern Southern Lake Corn Delta SouthPacific Mountain Plains Plains States Belt States east Appalachian Northeast Other* Total

1,000 head

Pacific 133 447 78 23 21 3 ** ** 4   708

Mountain 209 1,245 1,160 971 103 218 2 2 14 **  20 3,944

Northern Plains 12 597 1,596 167 211 555 1 2 8 1 670 3,820

Southern Plains 11 806 945 561 7 27 16 14 3 ** 44 2,435

Lake States 18 36 57 3 13 64 1 2 5 1 ** 200

Corn Belt 22 48 600 88 37 244 3 6 10 1 19 1,079

Delta States 1 89 292 800 10 34 65 11 81 ** 12 1,395

Southeast ** 29 245 557 3 31 91 148 84 6 ** 1,194

Appalachian 7 64 382 183 11 212 28 18 73 2 ** 979

Northeast 4 2 8   2 **  15 20 10 ** 61

Other* 18 110 32 1,725 4 14 8 ** 1 1 0 1,913

Total 435 3,473 5,395 5,078 420 1,404 215 218 303 22 765 17,728

*Mostly Mexico and Canada, but also includes U.S. States not specifically identified as a source/destination in the original data.

** = flows from 1 to 499 head.

Source: State certificate data (generally 2001) compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA.

576

3,110

834

4,515

1,322

1,765

187

2,585

2,699

5,595

51

1,501

2,224

6,150

1,046

2,385

907

3,495

1,873

6,940

1,000 head:

Shipments out of region

2001 calf crop

Selected annual flows

Million head

0.3 - 0.9

1 - 2

= Intraregional flow

Source: State certificate data (generally 2001) compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA.

Mexico

15 Shipments from the Appalachian region are underestimated

because data were not available from Tennessee, a State with a

large beef cow herd.
Many feeder cattle enter Texas from the rest of the

southern U.S. and Mexico. Zebu (Brahman) is a popular breed raised in the U.S. Southwest and these cattle

perform better in the warmer feedlots of south Texas,

southern New Mexico, and Arizona. Cattle from the

Southeast and other areas are also shipped to feedlots

in the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles. Feeder cattle

from Mexico are shipped across the U.S. border for

feeding in neighboring States and as far north as the

Northern Plains (Skaggs et al., 2001). Breeding cattle

are also shipped to Mexico from Texas, New Mexico,

and Arizona. Spent dairy cows are shipped to Mexico

for slaughter.

Cattle shipments from the Northeast and Lake States

are often dairy breeds (Miller, 2001). In New York, for

example, dairy producers ship heifer calves to the

Midwest for feeding before they mature and return to

enter the milking herd (Huse, 2002). Many operations

ship their dairy steer and bull calves to other locations,

often through auction markets. 

Movement of dairy cattle into the West is also quite

extensive. In 2001, California brought in dairy cattle

from 44 States, with more than 5,000 head each arriving from Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,

Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, and Wisconsin. 

Economic Research Service, USDA 15

Table 3—Livestock shipments vary by region

Cattle Hogs Sheep

Annual 

shipments 

from region

Shipments/ 

Calf crop* Pig crop** Lamb crop* calf crop

1,000 head Percent 1,000 head Percent 1,000 head Percent

Pacific 576 3,110 18 16 342 5 8 508 2

Mountain 2,699 5,595 48 1,359 4,684 29 146 1,678 9

Northern Plains 2,224 6,150 36 3,233 10,915 30 116 578 20

Southern Plains 1,873 6,940 27 2,562 7,690 33 409 610 67

Lake States 187 2,585 7 2,177 12,395 18 7 277 2

Corn Belt 834 4,515 18 1,554 36,886 4 5 520 1

Delta States 1,322 1,765 75 912 2,580 35 0.3 *** ***

Southeast 1,046 2,385 44 576 1,691 34 1 *** ***

Appalachian 907 3,495 26 3,427 21,071 16 1 82 2

Northeast 51 1,501 3 19 2,210 1 0.3 159 0.2

Weighted average 31 16 16

*2001. **December 2000 to November 2001. ***Not available.

Sources: Shipments from region compiled from State certificate data (using both inshipment and outshipment data). Calf, pig, and lamb crops 

from National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

Annual 

shipments 

from region

Annual 

shipments 

from region

Shipments/ 

lamb crop

Shipments/ 

pig crop
The Corn Belt accounts for more than 70 percent of

total hog movements. Along with intraregional movements, the Corn Belt is the major destination for hogs

shipped from all other regions, particularly Appalachia,

Southern Plains (e.g., Oklahoma), Northern Plains (e.g.,

Nebraska), and Canada. 

There are also substantial flows of feeder pigs from the

Northern Plains and Canada into the Lake States (mostly Minnesota) as well as from the Southern Plains into

the Northern Plains. Small numbers of breeding animals

are shipped around the country as well.

16 Economic Research Service, USDA

Regional Hog Flows 

Table 4—Regional hog flows

Destination

Destination Northern Southern Lake Corn Delta SouthPacific Mountain Plains Plains States Belt States east Appalachian Northeast Other* Total

1,000 head

Pacific ** ** na na 1 14 na na   **  16

Mountain 17 1 478 ** 283 571 ** na 1 8 ** 1,360

Northern Plains 9 21 393 10 1,181 1,947 1 2 19 4 36 3,626

Southern Plains 17 ** 282 na 135 2,071 53 4   na 2,562

Lake States **  18 191 1 74 1,899 ** 1 65 3 ** 2,252

Corn Belt 16 5 147 20 1,163 5,159 50 2 128 1 22 6,713

Delta States   3 6 37 847 **  ** 17   910

Southeast **  ** 3 5 6 362 17 178 177 7 na 754

Appalachian 1 ** 44 2 74 2,934 92 220 210 61 na 3,637

Northeast   na na **  18 na ** ** 9 na 27

Other* 7 na 167 na 912 1,711 na 1 12 4 na 2,814

Total 66 46 1,709 43 3,868 17,532 213 408 629 96 58 24,670

*Mexico, Canada, and U.S. States not specifically identified as source/destination in original data. ** = flows from 1 to 499 head.

Totals may not add due to rounding. na = Not available.

Source: State certificate data (generally 2001) compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA.

16

342

1,554

36,886

2,177

12,395

1,359

4,684

19

2,210

3,233

10,915

2,562

7,690

1,000 head:

Shipments out of region

2001 pig crop

Selected annual flows

Million head

1.50 - 2.93

5.16

= Intraregional flow

Source: State certificate data (generally 2001) compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA.

3,427

21,071

576

912 1,691

2,580

0.25 - 1.49

Canada
Sheep shipments are much smaller than cattle or hogs,

and some regions, particularly in the eastern U.S., are

nearly devoid of interstate shipments. Out-of-state

shipments are most numerous in the western twothirds of the United States, although the Southeast has

a sizeable intraregional flow. The bulk of movement is

within the Mountain region and between that region

and the Corn Belt and Northern Plains. Within the

Mountain region, breeding stock move between summer and winter grazing programs. 

Shipments of sheep to Mexico from Texas include old

breeding stock that may be kept for a few more breeding cycles before being slaughtered for mutton, or

wool-type sheep (Ramboulet) that will be shorn and

then slaughtered. 

Economic Research Service, USDA 17

Regional Sheep Flows 

Table 5—Regional sheep flows

Destination

Destination Northern Southern Lake Corn Delta SouthPacific Mountain Plains Plains States Belt States east Appalachian Northeast Other* Total

No. head

Pacific 708 3,900 159 4,000 3 na na 10 6 na na 8,786

Mountain 18,571 122,046 47,764 23,050 4,925 50,868 278 15 301 16 na 267,834

Northern Plains 5,808 15,241 30,235 19,158 22,703 51,754 17 28 15 3 1,122 146,084

Southern Plains 8,178 9,002 2,400 1,000 6 2,056 na 1,328 38 82 386,000 410,090

Lake States 1 35 1,246 2,009 342 3,401 3 142 5 5 2 7,191

Corn Belt 40 743 1,712 197 1,182 775 na 260 323 76 na 5,309

Delta States na na na na na na na 258 na na na 258

Southeast 3 5 na 39 22 165 132 9,882 413 59 na 10,720

Appalachian 11 24 39 34 4 115 na 1,018 1,691 170 na 3,106

Northeast 42 5 7 na na 23 na 56 212 1,125 na 1,470

Other* 11 na 964 1,000 14 na na 34 na 618 na 2,641

Total 33,373 151,001 84,526 50,487 29,201 109,157 430 13,031 3,004 2,154 387,124 863,489

*Mexico, Canada, and U.S. States not specifically identified as source/destination in original data.

Totals may not add due to rounding. na = Not available.

Source: State certificate data (generally 2001) compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA.

8,100

508,000

4,500

520,000

300

na

6,800

277,000

300

159,000

116,000

578,000

800

na

1,400

82,000

409,000

610,000

No. head:

Shipments out of region

2001 lamb crop

Selected annual flows

No. head

10,000 - 9,999

100,000 - 400,000

= Intraregional flow

Source: State certificate data (generally 2001) compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA.

146,000

1,678,000

na = not available.

Mexico
Hog inshipments have increased dramatically since the

early 1990s and now surpass cattle inshipments. The

dominant flow in hog shipments is into (and within)

the Corn Belt. Cattle inshipments have declined slightly since the early 1990s. Movements of cattle occur

throughout the country, but especially into (and within) the Northern and Southern Plains. Sheep inshipments have declined sharply since the early 1990s as

the U.S. herd continues its long-term decline.

Shipments are most numerous in the western twothirds of the United States. 

Regional shipping patterns described here are based on

data from certificates of veterinary inspection required

for interstate commerce by many, but not all, States. A

tabulation of source/destination shipments for all

States would take this analysis a step further. A current

project by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service may accomplish this in the coming years.

APHIS is developing a web-based system for State

certificates that, once implemented, would provide veterinarians with an electronic means of issuing certificates. Summary reports on shipments could be tabulated from the database, but all States must participate if

livestock tracking is to be thorough.

Another potential source of data is the recordkeeping

systems needed to verify country-of-origin labels. The

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require

retailers to inform consumers of the country of origin for

muscle cuts of beef, lamb, and pork; ground beef,

ground lamb, and ground pork. Mandatory regulations

are to be promulgated by September 30, 2004. In order

to implement the requirements mandated in this legislation, some cow-calf producers are considering upgraded

animal identification and/or tracking programs.

Using more complete data, disaggregation of shipments by month and animal type (e.g., beef/dairy,

feeding/breeding, weight, and value) could be used to

better identify patterns and isolate specific flows for

further analysis. For example, health experts and livestock analysts could more easily track a disease affecting only certain animals (e.g., young or one species of

livestock) or more easily identify its potential for

spread given seasonal shipping patterns. Also, price

differentials between various classes of livestock and

locations, which motivate shipments of livestock,

could be more transparent with increasingly disaggregated data.

18 Economic Research Service, USDA

Conclusions and Further Research Needs
Crop (cattle, pig, lamb)—number of animals born.

Growing area—a region where livestock are born and

weaned or raised until they are ready for finishing.

Feedlots—farm or commercial operations that maintain

600- to 800-pound cattle or 50- to 80-pound lambs in

pens and feed them grain and other feedstuffs to grade

“Select” or better.

Finishing area—a region where livestock are fed grain

and other feedstuffs to reach slaughter weight.

Inshipments—livestock shipped into States for feeding

or breeding (excludes animals brought in for immediate slaughter).

Operation—farm, ranch, feedlot, or other organized

unit of production.

Cattle

Beef cow-calf production—an operation that breeds

and maintains cows for the primary purpose of producing calves for beef production.

Backgrounding—a stage of cattle production when

calves eat roughage and/or light energy rations or

graze pasture (native grass or winter wheat), which

encourages structural growth. During the backgrounding period, producers decide when to place them in

feedlots to fatten for slaughter.

Hogs

Farrow-to-finish—an operation that raises hogs from

birth to slaughter weight, about 250-270 pounds. 

Feeder pig production—an operation that raises pigs

from birth to about 20-60 pounds, then generally sells

them to feeder pig finishers. 

Feeder pig finishers—an operation that buys pigs from

feeder pig producers and grows them to slaughter

weight.

Sheep

Sheep production—an operation where lambs are born,

raised, and/or fed to slaughter weight. Lamb feeding

programs may include a combination of grain and

grass, or lambs may be placed in a feedlot for highconcentrate (energy) feeding.

Economic Research Service, USDA 19

Glossary
Abbott, E.C., and H.H. Smith. We Pointed Them North,

University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 1955.

Bailey, D., B.W. Brorsen, and M.R. Thomsen.

“Identifying Buyer Market Areas and the Impact of

Buyer Concentration in Feeder Cattle Markets Using

Mapping and Spatial Statistics,” American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 77: 309-18. 1995.

Goodwin, B.K., and T.C. Schroeder. “Testing Perfect

Spatial Market Integration: An Application to

Regional United States Cattle Markets,” North

Central Journal of Agricultural Economics 12:

173-85. 1990.

Goodwin, B.K., and T.C. Schroeder. “Cointegration

Tests and Spatial Price Linkages in Regional Cattle

Markets,” American Journal of Agricultural

Economics 73: 452-64. 1991.

Hoffman, L.A., P. Boles, and T.Q. Hutchinson.

Livestock Trucking Services: Quality, Adequacy,

and Shipment Patterns, Economic Research Service,

USDA. Agricultural Economic Report No. 312,

October 1975.

Huse, Jeff. New York State Department of Agriculture

and Markets. Personal communication, April 12,

2002.

Judge, G.G., J. Havlicek, and R. L. Rizek. “An

Interregional Model: Its Formulation and Application

to the Livestock Industry,” Agricultural Economics

Research. Vol. XVII, No. 1, January 1965.

Lesser, W. Marketing Livestock and Meat. Food

Products Press. 1993.

McBride, William. U.S. Hog Production Costs and

Returns, 1992: An Economic Basebook, Economic

Research Service, USDA. Agricultural Economic

Report No. 724. November 1995.

McBride, William and Nigel Key. Economic and

Structural Relationships in U.S. Hog Production,

Economic Research Service, USDA. Agricultural

Economic Report No. 818, February 2003.

McCauley, E., N. Aulaqi, J. New, Jr., and W. B.

Sundquist, A Study of the Potential Economic

Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United

States. U.S. Department of Agriculture and

University of Minnesota, TB-1597, May 1979.

McCoy, J.G., and R.P. Bieber (editors). Historic

Sketches of the Cattle Trade of the West and

Southwest, University of Nebraska Press, 1986.

Miller, Jim. “Heifer Math & the Western Dairy

Industry,” Agricultural Outlook. Economic Research

Service, USDA. December 2001.

Roe, B., E. Irwin, and J. Sharp. “Pigs in Space:

Modeling the Spatial Structure of Hog Production

in Traditional and Nontraditional Production

Regions,” American Journal of Agricultural

Economics 94(2) (May 2002):259-278.

Schmidt, Steve. Department of Animal & Dairy

Sciences, Auburn University,

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/~sschmidt/

Schroeder, T.C., and B.K. Goodwin. “Regional Fed

Cattle Price Dynamics,” Western Journal of

Agricultural Economics 15:111-22. 1990.

Shapouri, Hosein. “Sheep Production in 11 Western

States.” Economic Research Service, USDA. Staff

Report No. AGES 9150. September 1991.

Skaggs, R., D. Mitchell, W. Gorman, T. Crawford, and

L. Southard. “Forecasting Mexican Live Cattle

Exports to the United States.” Paper presented to 

the Western Agricultural Economics Association,

July 10, 2001. 

Stillman, R., T. Crawford, and L. Aldrich. “The U.S.

Sheep Industry.” Economic Research Service,

USDA. Staff Report No., AGES 9048. July 1990.

USDA. “Foot and Mouth Disease: Sources of

Outbreaks and Hazard Categorization of Modes of

Virus Transmission.” Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, Centers for Epidemiology and

Animal Health, Ft. Collins, CO, December 1994.

USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

“Changes in the U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Industry,

1993-1997.” National Animal Health Monitoring

System. May 1998.

20 Economic Research Service, USDA

References
USDA, APHIS. Part I: Reference of Swine Health 

and Management in the United States, 2000. 

August 2001.

USDA, APHIS. Part I: Reference of Sheep

Management in the United States, 2001. July 2002a.

USDA, APHIS. Part II: Baseline Reference of Feedlot

Health and Health Management in the United

States, 1999. November 2002.

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, “Meat

Animals Production, Disposition, and Income—

2001 Summary,” April 2002; “Livestock

Slaughter—2001 Summary,” March 2002; livestock

inventory appears in Agricultural Statistics Database

at www.nass.usda.gov:81/ipedb/. 

Walburger, A.M., and K.A. Foster. “Assessing the

Relationship between Market Factors and Regional

Price Dynamics in U.S. Cattle Markets,” Journal of

Agricultural and Resource Economics 22: 133-44.

1997.

Zering, K.D. North Carolina State University, Raleigh,

NC. Personal communication, August 29, 2001.

Economic Research Service, USDA 21
22 Economic Research Service, USDA

Appendix table—Compiled shipment data

State Inshipments Outshipments Year Source

Alabama Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001* Alabama Dept. of Agriculture and Industries, Animal Industry Division

Alaska Cattle, sheep 2001 Alaska Agricultural Statistics Service

Arizona

Arkansas Cattle, hogs Cattle, hogs 2001 Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission

California Cattle, hogs 2001 California Dept. of Food and Agriculture, Animal Health Branch

Colorado Cattle 1994 Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida Cattle, hogs Cattle, hogs 2001 Florida Agricultural Statistics Service

Georgia Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 Georgia Dept. of Agriculture

Hawaii

Idaho Cattle Cattle 2001 Idaho Department of Agriculture

Illinois Cattle, hogs Cattle, hogs 2001 Illinois Department of Agriculture

Indiana Cattle, hogs 2000 Indiana Agricultural Statistics Service

Iowa Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

Kansas Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 Kansas Agricultural Statistics Service

Kentucky Cattle, hogs Cattle, hogs 2000 Kentucky Department of Agriculture

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland Cattle, hogs Cattle, hogs 2001 Maryland Department of Agriculture, Animal Health Section

Massachusetts Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001* Massachusetts Dept. of Food and Agriculture

Michigan

Minnesota Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001** Minnesota Board of Animal Health

Mississippi Cattle, hogs Cattle, hogs 2000*** Mississippi Agricultural Statistics Service

Missouri Hogs Hogs 2001 Missouri Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Animal Health

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 Nevada Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry

New Hampshire Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture Markets & Food

New Jersey Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 New Jersey Department of Agriculture

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services

North Dakota Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 North Dakota Department of Agriculture

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001 Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Health & Identification Div.

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001  South Dakota Animal Industry Board

Tennessee

Texas Cattle, sheep Cattle, sheep 2000 Texas Agricultural Statistics Service

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 2001** ** West Virginia Dept. of Agriculture

Wisconsin Cattle, hogs 2000 Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service

Wyoming Cattle, hogs, sheep Cattle, hogs, sheep 1999 Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service

Blank indicates no available tabulations of shipment data by State of origin/destination.

*Fiscal year beginning October 2000.

**September 1, 2000, to September 30, 2001.

***2001 for hogs.

****July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001.